A study on the effect of fulfilling hegemonic masculine norms on men's health across regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect that fulfillment of traditional masculine gender norms has on men’s health (self-rated health) across different regions of the world. Regions include Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and English speaking countries (United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain).The masculine constructs used are derived from Mahalik’s (2005) Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory and include risk-taking, dominance, disdain for homosexuality, power over women, pursuit of status, and self-reliance. These concepts were then applied to questions asked in the World Values Survey (n=32,183) and a scale for adherence to each norm was calculated for every individual. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted for each region to explore if higher adherence to each constructs resulted in a higher self-rated health score. Results show that adherence to constructs are associated with better health in some regions and worse health in others. Furthermore, not every construct was statistically significant in each region or to the same degree. While previous research suggests that fulfilling norms such as risk-taking and dominance will always decrease men’s health, this study found that in some cases, health increased. This suggests a much more nuanced picture of gender norms and health that is influenced greatly by geography.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".